Kickoff Specialist

[Steve]

Except it isnt working.

Its been 8 games since Novak's last Touchback.

Thats 31 Kickoffs since his last Touchback.

In that time the opponents average starting field position is the 28 yardline.

Out of the 31 kickoffs 12 out of the times the other team starts at their 30 or better.

Out of the 31 kickoffs only 7 of those has the opponent failed to reach the 20.

4 of the 7 times it was because of a penalty. 1 was a muff catching the ball. And the other 2 reached the 19.

So the strategy is only working against the Bolts opponent if they get a penalty or make a mistake.

I think you are dead wrong, and the stats you listed show that. You assumed that field position (yards) is the only thing that is important, but it is deeper then that.

Of those 12 kicks, remember, that in the statistical sense, there is a negligible difference between starting at the 20 and 30, so unless we have given up a long run, there is not much difference between those kicks in terms of points allowed. That is because teams average something like 4.0 ypc and 7.0 ypp, so in terms of the average, the deciding factor is going to be how many successful plays can a team put together until they screw up, and given the pretty set average per play. So, the average length of a drive stalls out before they get in scoring position.

Of those 7 kicks, they made a mistake on 5 (1 muff and 4 penalties pushing them back half the distance or 10 yards) of 7 and those are betting odds. But more importantly the outcome of those 7, there is a HUGE difference. If the other team starts back at our around the 10, there is a negative points, meaning you rarely score yourself and set up the other team (Chargers) to score. So, if the odds of giving up more points is very low, and the odds of scoring ourselves (not directly, but through field position swings), I don't see how it is a bad idea at all.

[oneinchpunch]

I think you are dead wrong, and the stats you listed show that.

They show that this team needs someone better on kickoffs

[Yubaking]

We kicked off at the 50 because of a penalty prior to the 90 yard TD run so we had the luxury of a short field we could try that. I still believe that any strategy the coaching staff is doing on kickoffs is simply because Novak's leg is so weak he can't force touchbacks.

Right. We are making the strategy choice to kick short because we cannot get regular TBs. I am sure that if we asked Novak to try for TBs every time, he could get them at a higher rate than his dead last 13.2% so far, but we would be seeing a lot more long returns on low line drive kickoffs.

This is not the most important area in need of improvement during the offseason, but it is an area that we should look at improving going forward so we can at least get the 52+% TBs that represents the league median number instead of our 32nd ranked 13.2%.

[Guest]

I still think the Chargers win the AFC Championship in New England if we had a guy who could kick the ball in the end zone. Despite the injuries. The Pats started like every drive against us after scoring on the 40+...

[Yubaking]

I just don't understand the "try to pin them back" mentality on a kickoff. A touchback starts them at the 20 every time and they have 80 yards to go to score a TD. So any time you are able to stop them behind the 20, you have gained something, and if not you lose over just getting a touchback. So you are always gambling giving up an extra 80 yards to potentially pin them back up to 20 yards. Just on the face of it that doesn't seem like a good gamble. Especially since realistically, most of those "wins" net you 5-10 yards, and losses can be catastrophic. Let's look at our six kickoffs from the SF game:

Kicked to the 3, returned 21 yards to the 24 (loss of 4 yards over a TB)
Kicked to the 5, returned 31 yards to the 36 (loss of 11 yards over a TB)
Kicked to the 3, returned 18 yards to the 22 (loss of 2 yards over a TB)
Kicked to the 3, returned 3 yards to the 6 (gain of 14 yards over a TB)
Kicked to the -2, returned 47 yards to the 45 (loss of 25 yards over a TB)
Kicked to the 20, returned 8 yards to the 28 (loss of 8 yards over a TB)

So the approach we are using on kickoffs benefitted us 1 of 6 times, and one of the times it didn't we put them near midfield. I don't have the desire to go back and look through all of our kickoffs this year, but based on my recollection it seems to me we don't have very many big victories on the kickoff, and we frequently let the opponent start beyond the 20. Also factor in the potential for injury on a kickoff play, and it just seems like booming it out of the end zone and letting them start every drive on the 20 is a better plan.

Very good analysis.

Of course, we are unable to use the most effective strategy, which is just to get TBs because Novak lacks that ability with any degree of consistency. So we have to settle for doing our best with strategic shorter kickoffs. We are not choosing shorter kickoffs over TBs, though. We are doing it because TBs aren't on the menu.

In addition, the one kickoff where we did pin the 49ers behind the 20 was on the kickoff from the 50 yard line. That is a completely different scenario, so that kickoff should be excluded from the analysis when looking at what the kickoffs show us. When it is, anyone can see that if this were a strategy that were somehow not forced upon us due to Novak's lack of consistent TB% ability, it would be a really stupid strategy for all of the reasons that you identified.

Because I refuse to insult our coaching staff by believing that they could possibly be so stupid, my conclusion is that they are just trying to make the best of it in an area of clear deficiency.

[Faded blues]

To say this is the Chargers most pressing issue is just plain dumb.

An area of concern? Yes.

[richpjr]

They show that this team needs someone better on kickoffs

^This.

[blueman]

I still think the Chargers win the AFC Championship in New England if we had a guy who could kick the ball in the end zone. Despite the injuries. The Pats started like every drive against us after scoring on the 40+...

Or if we had Mathews for the second half...

[oneinchpunch]

To say this is the Chargers most pressing issue is just plain dumb.

An area of concern? Yes.

You really told the poster that called this "the Chargers most pressing issue."

You're right, that guy is a dummy.

[Panamamike]

I can live with the kickoffs. Depth issues have been critical at various positions. I don't advocate an extra roster spot to a KO specialist. If we come out of the gate healthy next year, and remain relatively so, then that would be a different story....perhaps they could add the specialist.

[Steve]

The flaw in Savage lizards look (besides looking at too small a sample) is that all yards are not created equal. How many yards can a team expect to gain, and since you know how many yards you expect to give up on a play, you have to ask how many plays can a team run before they put together enough negative plays/incomplete passes/penalties before they stop themselves?

The point isn't that the touchback is safer, because it is. It also nets better field position on average. But the field position is not as important as the drives/field position you gain when the other team is forced back. That is worth more than the field position you give up, which is negligibly important.

Why did we pay to keep Scfries? Why for Tutu and Stuckey? if you just kick for touchbacks (punts and kickoffs), you don't need to spend the extra salary cap space on those guys, because it wouldn't matter. But the field position is worth it, even if you don't always get it, because the times that you do get it pays off far more then when it doesn't.

[MakoShark]

The flaw in Savage lizards look (besides looking at too small a sample) is that all yards are not created equal. How many yards can a team expect to gain, and since you know how many yards you expect to give up on a play, you have to ask how many plays can a team run before they put together enough negative plays/incomplete passes/penalties before they stop themselves?

The point isn't that the touchback is safer, because it is. It also nets better field position on average. But the field position is not as important as the drives/field position you gain when the other team is forced back. That is worth more than the field position you give up, which is negligibly important.

Why did we pay to keep Scfries? Why for Tutu and Stuckey? if you just kick for touchbacks (punts and kickoffs), you don't need to spend the extra salary cap space on those guys, because it wouldn't matter. But the field position is worth it, even if you don't always get it, because the times that you do get it pays off far more then when it doesn't.

I don't think the sample size is too small at all. What SL posted is a snapshot of what we've seen all season. If one wanted to take the time you could make a post like SL's for each game and you would see a pattern emerge. And this is about kickoffs only, Steve. No one in this thread has mentioned punt coverage at all. We have a punt coverage unit that is very capable, and consistent, at downing the ball inside the 20 or 10. The same cannot be said, or even hinted at, when we talk about kickoff coverage. What is being represented here is one of the Chargers weaknesses. Its not the most glaring weakness, so it is not the Chargers most pressing issue, but it may be something they will want to look at in the off season.